Windows Forum

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Well, I'm scared, now

0 helpful
192 replies

by delbertpgh 5 views

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

This is page 2 of the discussion. Read the opening post

192 replies

by tonythetiger

on how much control you had over the factors involved. It wouldn't seem right, for example, to claim credit for changes brought about by an overall increase in consumer confidence. If on the other hand, you came up with a way to improve production efficiency, then sure, a bonus would be in order.

by tonythetiger

While I can't speak to this particular situation, a buyout can be cheaper than breaking a contract with the resultant lawsuit. Buyouts (of retirement points) is also done in a lot of union shops to replace older, higher paid workers with younger, cheaper ones.

by delbertpgh

Most of the people on this site think of themselves as libertarians, as if that embodies every virtue of humanity and government. The down-with-the-gummint principle becomes a chant, with no thinking behind it, a lot of the time. Look, people are flawed, and it takes a supervisory force to keep them from robbing and killing each other. The invisible hand does not move without a stable environment, enforced by the mailed hand of the state. That's a conservative principle. Another one is that you don't change too fast, or change for the sake of change, such as doing away with government and regulation like Rousseau's noble savages were going to step forth, their better natures freed. You have an evil nature side by side with your better nature, and you can control it, but only with help.

Libertarians are like children with a tricycle. They find they can drive it across the playroom, and believe from that evidence they can drive around the world. I ain't such.

by the scummy one

just went around it (like a politician :0 )
You often state that you are for Less government, however ALWAYS you are posting for More government.
Every time an issue comes up you want more regulation, government involvement, etc.. So why not tell us what part of the government you want reduced, instead of all the parts you want added.
Btw -- while adding government, how exactly does that lessen said government?

by delbertpgh

In times of war, you expect the government to do things it wouldn't do in peace. When survival is under threat, conservatives and liberals both expect government to cross traditional lines.

In case I haven't been obvious enough, I think the national economic condition is under deadly threat. I wouldn't support a government that nationalized its bankers' mistakes unless I thought we were at risk of a repeat of the Great Depression. Avoiding a full-on depression is an act of the highest national importance. Beyond the purely human tragedy, a depression makes the population doubt civil and political arrangements. Democracy and captialism could be overthrown by voters' desparate attempt to return to security.

As an example in point, during the first years of the Great Depression, Republicans held a majority of seats in both Congress and the Senate. Roosevelt ran on a platform of national rescue, and when in office, governed from a social democrat political stance. He saved democracy and capitalism in this country, which was starting to flirt with communist and fascist doctrine. In 1932, the Republicans lost 101 seats in the house and 12 in the senate; after two years of Roosevelt, they lost 14 house and 9 senate seats more; after four years of Roosevelt (1936), they lost a further 15 house and 9 senate seats, and saw FDR reelected. Republicans only held 88 of 435 seats in Congress and 16 of 96 in the Senate. Republicans ceased to be even a glancing consideration in policy making, and would remain an ineffectual fringe group in Congress until 1942, despite Roosevelt's sweeping program of government expansion and regulation.

That's how fast and far economics can change a country.

by zepp ledelin

Given the current state of affairs in the world market who would you trust to lead the country through these trobled times?

Brown?
Other Labour?
Cameron?
Other Conservative?
A.N Other?

by delbertpgh

I think the time for Fannie and Freddie is long past. Likewise, I expect the Community Reinvestment Act is ineffective and has more impact via its unintended consequences than through its design. That's the curse of government.

One of the aggravations of our modern age is that you can find a college of experts to provide supporting evidence and wise testimony to just about any damn opinion you can name. When we enter a political discussion, we have to speak from experience and principles, and each be his own most severe critic. Unfortunately, it means that well-intentioned people will often never come to an agreement.

by locrian_lyric

It's bad enough when you're just off base, but ascribing to me words that are opposite of what I have said goes beyond the pale.

by jdclyde

When politicians started pushing the agenda to put people in houses, they took the RISK out of writing the bad loans.

Free market involves risks, and if you have no penalty for making a high risk, high gain, decision, why wouldn't you?

The oversight committees knew about this years ago, and did nothing. We need to remove every politician that was involved with the oversight of this, regardless of party, and then require any company that gets a LOAN remove the execs that put them in the position of losing everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0

The banks back in 05 saying they were in big trouble, but because the political contributions kept coming in, it was business as usual.

by delbertpgh

'There is a lot more to blame than "greed". When politicians started pushing the agenda to put people in houses, they took the RISK out of writing the bad loans.'

It's pretty obvious that whatever risk the politicians may have covered, the loans the bankers made took on much more. If they had stuck to the business that was covered by government guarantees, they wouldn't be going broke now.

"Greed" is kind of a perjorative word, like "bailout." It just sounds bad, even though the get-mo' instinct is what makes every successful economy work. I'll use a different term.

Financiers pursued what the perceived to be their self interest long past the point where the risks they took on were justified. They had a money-making scheme, which was based on market values continuously rising, no problems borrowing money, low interest rates, and no recession. It worked for year after year, until it seemed like a new business model, and then everybody in Wall Street wanted to be part of the new way to make money. (They call it "innovation", as if they were great inventors.) Delusion unchallenged became the new reality. The success story went on and on, and they kept looking for more loans to write, and accepting riskier borrowers; the credit rating agencies (which are private companies, with no taxpayer connection) got out of the habit of saying "C" and said "triple-A" instead, because they were making money, too. The government could have stepped in and said that people were borrowing too much, and could have tried to make some loans illegal, and keep people from drawing their equity out of their homes; but not even a Democratic government would have found that an easy thing to attempt. All business, the Wall Street Journal, and people like you would have screamed about the arrogance and injustice of government trying to stomp out a successful business practice because of some socialist authoritarian instinct. Say it ain't so. The government just let it roll on, because it was too hard to stop. Kept interest rates low, too, which helped push more money into housing, and made it seem like smart business for banks to even hold on to some of the crappy mortgage bonds they were spinning off.

Government should have done something, and government helped cause it, but your picture of good bankers turned bad by the influence of government just doesn't go the distance. It was a shift in mass psychology, and it was money that moved men's minds.

by tonythetiger

[i]We need to remove every politician that was involved with the oversight of this, regardless of party,[/i]

Not removed... Shot in place by a firing squad, and leaving the corpse where it falls as a reminder :)

by jdclyde

about Obama wanting to re-work NAFTA, to keep Canada and Mexico from taking advantage of us? :0

Knowing what a huge fan you are of this, I am VERY interested in your view.

Does Obama have the right view on Nafta, or does he not?

by jamesrl

Its funny if you ask the left in Canada, they think thousands of manufacturing jobs left Canada because of NAFTA, if you ask the left in the US they will say the same thing.

In fact they left because it is so much cheaper to manufacture in Asia.

The US has taken advantage of Canada, if you look at softwood lumber. I can't honestly think of any similar examples where Canada has done the same.

I think its to our mutual advantage to have a strong NAFTA agreement, I'm not sure that opening it up again wouldn't lead us to scrapping it altogether.

Its a stupid weak pandering thing for Obama to have said it, and notice he has been quiet on it for a while. Did he mention it during the debate when I went to make popcorn?

James

by jdclyde

And it works, which is why Democrats say it.

And amazes me how people think having open trade between Canada and the US could be a bad thing. Mexico is another story, and it is a drain to both Canada and the US.

I can not tell you the last time Obama made that statement.

I do know it was about a week ago that he said we need to build clean coal plants (while talking to the miners) and later that day Biden was blasting China for the dirty coal plants that are "killing us" and "we" have to clean up after, and that there would be NO new coal plants in the US.

by oz_media

I think McCain's idea of leaving it alone is wrong. ""future of America's economy." Perhaps, but it has been a scam for Western Canada.

Even if Obama thinks that We are taking advantage of the USA, reworking it means we might actually have a hand in agreeing with it this time or negotiatign terms that don't let the US try to change our laws again.

Obviously Obama sees flaws in NAFTA, while I don't see the concept as flawed I see the agreement terms as flawed.

Due to NAFTA we are forced to incorporate cheap, US made additives in our gasoline (hey its free trade, we want ot control Canada's products too!), even though it is still under much health scrutiny here, US health has approved it and thus so should we.

If there are legal issues raised, the US gets in a hissy fit if they are handled by the originating countries laws and not US laws, which 'America' feels should apply globally.

As far as Canadians go, with the recent cleanup/deregulation of Crown corporations and major US corporations that held monopolies in Canada, NAFTA is not a step forward as it opens up Canada to even more US corporate greed in the area of public services, which we just worked for ten years to get rid of, much to our favour.

And while we are on the subject, where is the 5 BILLION you owe us in duty deposits?

NAFTA was good for America, and COULD have been good for Canada too, in more ways than it actually is. It needs serious revision, Canada was pretty much thrown into NAFTA against mass protest but it still stands pretty much unchanged today.

As most democrats do not support NAFTA, and NOW most Canadians see the flaws too, why would I support anything BUT Obama's pledge to review and reconsider the act?

by jdclyde

So, you have no problem with the fact that Obama has made the claim that Canada is taking advantage of the US via NAFTA?

I figured being made the boogiemen in this would grate you more than that.

Is there anything Obama could say or do that would detach you from his ass?

by locrian_lyric

all the folks who vote against this boondoggle will be nailed for voting against all the goodies tacked on to it.

of course, the campaign ads won't mention the boondoggle, only the fact congressman X voted AGAINST clean air, clean water, alternative energy, safe streets, the poor, civil rights and the kitchen sink!

by jamesrl

After years of studying comparative political systemsand public administration (some of the most boring courses at university), I've never seen another democracy that allows you to tack anything no matter how irrelevent, to a piece of legislation.

In most systems, the proposers of the bill or the committees, may make changes or additions to the bill, but only ones that are relevent to the purpose of the bill.

When I heard the clause about HMOs treating mental health issues being added to the bailout package, I had to shake my head. I've known this kind of thing happened since my university days almost 30 years ago, but I would have thought they would be rational about the bailout package.

No wonder many citizens of the US think their federal government is corrupt. They are drunk on the sweeteners required to get anything passed, drunk on trading favours.

James

by Member 25348569

The Soviet Union had cut off all but the most insignificant economic ties with other nations under the heading "socialism in one country." They might not have had a particularly good time of things when they were going for rapid industrial development without outside capital, but the Russians had nothing like a depression during the 1930s.

by jamesrl

The Soviet Union achieved its industrial expansion in the 1930s through unsustainable means. They used forced labour (127,000 died between 1928 and 1932), and even the non forced labour folks were working 16-18 hour days. Millions were snet to forced labour camps for "crimes against the state".

And of course millions died as a direct result of the collectivization of agriculture, because the productivity dropped so low. Some claim that the famine deaths in the Ukraine were as a result of a deliberate policy, but millions died in Russia as well.

So all in all Neil, I think I'd rather take my chances in the great depression in a western country, than to live through the hell of the Soviet Union of the 30s.

James

by jdclyde

I am saying that if politicians would have stayed out in the first place, then smart business practices would have kept this in line.

Government gave them the license to thrill, and they used it. It is dishonest to only blame one and not the other.

As I have consistently said, it is time to clean house of both politicians, and the execs of any company that wishes to be bailed out.

Did you watch the CSPAN video from 05? Obama himself knew back then, as did the rest of the lot. They were getting their payoffs AND THEIR social agenda was getting fulfilled, so they let things go from bad to worse. Sit back and say it is just the evil bankers at fault here if you wish, but the rest of us know better.

And yes, the cleaning of house of politicians should go across the board, regardless of party. They are NOT looking out for OUR best interests.

As an Obama supporter, does it bother you how much he has raked in from the banks after pretending that he would not take money from special interest groups? What is he, ranked second in who Fanny gave money to? That isn't change, that is cha-ching.

by tonythetiger

[i]It's pretty obvious that whatever risk the politicians may have covered, the loans the bankers made took on much more.[/i]

If the taxpayers are bailing them out, there is no risk at all!

[i]"Greed" is kind of a perjorative word, like "bailout." It just sounds bad, even though the get-mo' instinct is what makes every successful economy work.[/i]

'Get-mo' is fine, as long as it is within your means. If it's not, then you (the person or entity) should bear all of the consequences. To make me pay for your 'mo' is wrong.

by boxfiddler Hot topic

along with the advent of 'plastic' and metal 'lumber', I'd like to know why we're still pillaging the forests of the world. Then, I'm a tree hugger of sorts.

by jamesrl

Plastic comes from petroleum and other chemicals. Metal studs (2x4) require mining etc etc.

Lumber can be done sustainbly if done properly. The biggest park around here is Algonquin, rated number 1 park to visit in Canada, and yet they still log it - under very strict control. I would defy you to fly over the plac e and tell me where they are cutting if you didn't see the crews and trucks.

It reminds me of the old arguments about going back to cloth diapers instead of disposables. When you factor in the bleach used to whiten diapers, the phosphates in the soap, the energy to heat the water and dru the diapers, all of a sudden disposables may actually be more friendly to the environment than cloth.

Similarly a hybrid requires batteries, most of which have lead, mercury and other heavy metals, which pollute when created and may pollute when improperly disposed of.

I love trees. As part of my political life I lobbied for the US to reduce its emissions of particulates to reduce acid rain.

But its not always what we chose, it is how we manage our resources that makes a difference.

James

by boxfiddler Hot topic

There is a price to be paid for everything. In relation to construction, however, I think the trade off might be more worth it. Plastics and metals last significantly longer than wood, attract no termites or carpenter ants, and if manufacturing emissions are properly handled, leave those oxygen producing trees in place.

I'm kind of a fruitcake this way. ;)

by boxfiddler Hot topic

But are they going to act on their anger, or just keep playing along in SOSO fashion?

by delbertpgh

I don't characterize bankers as "evil" so I can then feel more comfortable blaming them for the trouble. I blame them because they played the game as they saw it, and they saw it wrong. They saw an opportunity to take fees for making loans, and to take fees for rolling those loans into securities, and they went for it. And went straight over the edge with it. I call them "dumb" because they knew better, and chose to ignore their better judgment.

You could blame the government for a little in provoking it. I blame the government a lot for not enforcing standards. They could have but they didn't; it was the mood of the times, and the mood of the dominant so-called "conservative" political culture in America. I don't respect contemporary conservatism much, because it seems more like celebrity-driven populism, which provides cover for politically ignorant operators who think the point of public service is stuffing the right pockets. But I digress.

Bankers convinced themselves over a period of ten years that a new age had dawned in finance, and that the old risk models had no relevance to the new opportunities. More and more money poured into finance, and that convinced the dumb bankers even more that they were right. After all, isn't the guy with the biggest car, the hottest wife, the cutest mistress, and the most bucks in his pocket the one who's right about business? It's just human nature, the same as love, jealousy, and the profit motive. If you keep getting more and more money, you'll think you're more and more right.

by oz_media

I won't provide anything for you, its pointless.

You could argue that a litre is more than a gallon and still claim to be right no matter how wrong you were, what a waste of time.

Its like people who claim to BELIEVE in religion or that God created the Earth. If you don't understand the difference between faith and fact, there's no hope of you ever grasping reality. if there's some foggy line in your brain that stops you from determining between scientific proof and ancient stories, then how would you possibly hope to have any credibility in the real world?

Sometimes its just not worth anyone's time.

by oz_media

"The schools in America have so much money that this kind of Malfeasance CAN go on.

Silly me, I want accountability."

You're right, it was Locrian Lyric that said it, not you.

by oz_media

And then you speak for this particular situation?

I was addressing a specific post and comment, if you can't speak for that particular situation, why is your post title "Not necessarily"?

Obviously you are debating the point I made regarding that specific situation, otherwise such a reply is completely irrelevant.

This has nothing to do with Union buyouts, but thank you for the common knowledge all the same.

by Member 25348569

I was just posting to get a rise out of Lyric. ]:)

I thought that if he's going to label me as "Karl Marx", I might just go for the big prize.

Neil :D

by tonythetiger

[i]And then you speak for this particular situation?[/i]

No I didn't. I spoke to your statement...

[i]That doesn't indicate ANYTHING other than a corrupt system. [/i]

It is not uncommon, nor is it necessarily "corrupt" to buy out a contract if it will save money in the longer term.

by jmgarvin

Mr Paulson's proposal to purchase distressed mortgage-related securities poses a classic problem of asymmetric information. The securities are hard to value but the sellers know more about them than the buyer: in any auction process the Treasury would end up with the dregs. The proposal is also rife with latent conflict of interest issues. Unless the Treasury overpays for the securities, the scheme would not bring relief. But if the scheme is used to bail out insolvent banks, what will the taxpayers get in return?

by boxfiddler Hot topic

via CNN TV news, the amount of money attached to the bailout has now reached $850 billion dollars.

Obama and McCain both say they will vote for it.

by av .

Where was our government up until now? Now, we all are faced with this huge bailout of bad assets from people that made bad loans or cheated the system. It is a national disgrace and extreme embarrassment.

I'm sure that our government will prevent the collapse of the system, but I also know that we and our children will pay dearly for whatever they come up with.

I don't see another great depression, just leaner times. This will definitely influence what I invest my money in in the future.

AV

by boxfiddler Hot topic

for now, but if they don't do something about the corruption that put us in this mess in the first place, it'll be like putting a bandaid over an open-heart surgery wound.
Tomorrow, we'll be bleeding to death.

edit: You're not the only one who's pissed.

by av .

In my opinion, there will be alot more taxpayer money involved than the $700B in this bailout. Sure, they say we can make money in the future on the bad assets we're buying. Why should I believe that?

AV

by jmgarvin

This is just like the airline bailout, just like the junk bond mess, it's just like everything else...

The rich get richer, the middle class get screweder, and the poor get WAY poorer.

by tonythetiger

"I guess the big problem was the plan came in two parts, and they couldn't agree on which part to implement first: the smoke or the mirrors."

by jamesrl

I'm not in an area that has carpenter ants, so can't comment there.

Oil and metal are finite resources. There may be lots of it we haven't discovered, but until we figure out economic space travel, there is a finite amount. Trees on the other hand are renewable. As long as we have good earth, air, rain and sunshine, we can grow an infinite amount of trees.

I'm not in favor of clearcutting. But did you know that selective cutting actually results in some trees growing faster and higher than they would in an uncut area?

I have seen steel studs used in construction, they are expensive, but generally faster to put up. They have an advantage in that they have cutouts for wiring pre stamped. I've seen them used only for interior walls in offices - like my current office.

Plastics, on the other hand, get quite nasty when they burn.

James

by w2ktechman

had absolutely nothing to do with the economy either...

what a load. I think we should all vote against everyone that passed this when they are up next time!

by jmgarvin

The politicos don't understand the impact of the internet and an informed populous.

The ramifications are huge and they are about to see what happens when the populations is pissed!

by w2ktechman

metal, and will retain the value of the metal itself on the world market!

Paper money may become worthless though.

by santeewelding

Mentioned the U.S. deficit during a speech in 1966 and told the joke about Pedro.

"How much is that in pesos," Pedro asked.

"All of them."

by oz_media

There are all kinds of composites available that are more durable and not too much more expensive that wood, especially given the life of the product and the fact that it is recyclable.

Unfortunately, the people who design and implement these products do so in such small quantities that it doesn't get enough exposure. Why would a country's largest corporations support an alternative to their industry?

NOTE: THese products are made form recycled plastics and other recyclable materials, of which there are plenty, not raw materials.

by jmgarvin

yet, the politicians continue to insist that we are DOOMED if we don't do this RIGHT NOW, with no thought or discussion!

The last time we did that we ended up with the Patriot Act and a war in Iraq.

by jamesrl

The labour unions in Canada cry that we've lost manufacturing jobs because of NAFTA.

Obama cries in Ohio that manufacturing jobs have gone due to NAFTA.

And I should be suprised?

We have of course lost manufacturing jobs, though in auto jobs we are about even - we have lost jobs from GM, Ford and Chrysler, and gained jobs from Honda and Toyota.

We've lost other manufacturing jobs, but not to the US or Mexico (some but not that many). We lose manufacturing every day to Asia, China and others.

NAFTA strenthens our trade with each other, and its better to give money withint north American than outside.

James

James

by jdclyde

15 Republicans and 9 Democrats and 1 Independent voted NO.

Hardly a partisan opposition.

McCain, Obama, and Biden all YES votes.

by jmgarvin

It's like the FISA bill all over again...

Does anyone else feel like they are ready to get the Canadians to burn the White House down again?

by the scummy one

I wanna see :D
Oh, and make sure that Bush and Cheney are in there, and cannot get out... Edit: and awake and drug free enough to suffer

by oz_media

Sorry, I was just stomping on a few flags, trying to get caught up on my chores.

But I suppose I COULD as a British Citizen, it wasn't Canadians but the British that burned the White House.

by jamesrl

..or do they...

It actually wasn't Canadian troops that burned the White House, the Canadian regiments were busy keeping the pesky yanks off of Canadian soil, with the help of our native allies.

The people who burned the White House were in fact British Marines, but they were inspired to do so, because the Americans had burned down the Upper Canada parliament in Toronto.

But Oz isn't actually a Canadian citizen, still holds a British passport. So there you go, you can invite him after all.

Of course you know what happened after the White House was torched (wasn't called the white house then), the first lady, Dolly Madison, went on a very extravengent spending spree. Thats not an example we want the next president to follow, is it?

James

James

by oz_media

I thought that was the origin for why the new first lady now redecorates the White House when hubby moves in.

by the scummy one

they read anything with $$$ and their name on it, then determine if it is a benefit for them or not. That is how things get passed these days

by tonythetiger

It's just so frustrating. If I do something stupid, I can be fired immediately, but these clowns get to stay the rest of their terms. I hope the voters remember...

by the scummy one

I would get rid of the lot of them -- start anew.
Then going through a brutal selection method to fill it up with people who actually MAY have the citizens best interest at heart!

by oz_media

You seem to forget, I don't think Canada is teh golden child. I agree that our government is as screwed up as yours in many ways. I just can't understand Americans that defend the govvernment, as if it is some bullied kid in school.

As far as Canada taking advantage of the US, that has to be reviewed and proven, assertions aren't facts. I think Obama would be opening Pandoras box though, and much would come to light if he was to start throwing around his weight. It would open up other issues with agreement to further scrutiny and further debate/revision.

MAYBE Canadians would actually have a different voice this time and not just roll over and wait to be violated. While it is intended to take a shot at Canada's side of teh agreement, I think Obama may shoot himself in the foot with it and that could backfire and benefit Canadian industry.

I don't love Obama but I think that, with McCain spending his Ovaltine days watching the Matlock marathon, it only leaves that haglette Palin to further ruin North America for 4-8 years.

by oz_media

It was the British at that time, I am sure there are several million happy to oblige any time though.

This discussion is closed to new replies.